The First Step in Creating a Space Age - Treat Earth as a Planet

On Nov 9, 11:17*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:
On Nov 8, 9:17 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
On Nov 8, 9:05 am, William Mook wrote:
As Jay Leno reported, the Hindenberg ignited not because of hydrogen
but because of the material that coated the surface of the balloon.
The magnesium struts didn't help either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHbaO...utube.com/watc...

Exactly,

Exactly wrong, as I pointed out elsewhere.

Not wrong at all. *Look at part three - they burned a 1/50th scale
replica and it validated the fact that it was the skin not the
hydrogen that was the culprit.

Exactly wrong. *I'll go with a real university study, thanks just the
same.

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine

Dessler's study did not involve experiments, does not explain the iron
and aluminum oxide sparks and thermite like flames in the original
film. It didn't address any of these issues. It addressed Bain's
ignition theory and showed that burning in air of an iron-oxide/butyl/
aluminum coated cotton fabric occurred slowly. It didn't address what
things would look like if a thermite reaction got started nor did it
explain how hydrogen which burns with a stable emisisonless flame
could have consumed the airship either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6hKM1I7-co

On Nov 9, 11:18*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:
On Nov 8, 9:18 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Alan Anderson wrote:
On Nov 8, 2:28 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
So I guess the Hindenberg didn't really explode and burn, then?

It didn't explode. Really.

It did burn, but blaming the hydrogen is almost certainly wrong.
Burning hydrogen gas produces a pretty blue smokeless flame. The
Hindenberg burned bright yellow, with plenty of smoke. Hydrogen rises..
A lot of the burning material fell. Ignition of the aluminum paint on
the airship's skin, perhaps from a discharge of static electricity, is
a very reasonable explanation for what happened.

It may be "very reasonable", but it doesn't explain what happened. See
what I posted elsewhere on the study done at CU.

CU is wrong the experimental results don't validate the theory.

Yeah, sure. *The university is wrong

I didn't say that. YOU are wrong Fred. Dessler is very limited in
his objections here. He shows through numerical analysis that an
electric spark couldn't start a thermite reaction in the way Bain
supposes and that without a thermite reaction you're limited to
burning in the atmosphere and that with that sort of burning it takes
a long time to consume the airship. He didn't do any experiments nor
did he attempt to explain how hydrogen would have made a difference
(other than by igniting a thermite reaction) nor did he consider how
to explain the iron and aluminum oxide sparks raining down off the
skin as it burned with an aggressive bright flame - far brighter than
is supported by hydrogen.


and the advertising copywriter is
right.

What advertising copyrighter? Cite?

*And you then wonder why we think your claims of being a 'real
engineer' are laughable?

Dessler's claims to being a thorough analysis of what caused the
Hindenberg disaster are laughable. You only cite him because on the
surface it appears to oppose what I've said. Fact is, you are
claiming lots more than Dessler is and Bain's theory revolves around
ignition not the events that consumed the airship.

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine

On Nov 9, 11:19*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:
On Nov 8, 9:19 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
On Nov 8, 12:32 pm, Alan Anderson wrote:
On Nov 8, 2:28 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:

So I guess the Hindenberg didn't really explode and burn, then?

It didn't explode. Really.

It did burn, but blaming the hydrogen is almost certainly wrong.
Burning hydrogen gas produces a pretty blue smokeless flame. The
Hindenberg burned bright yellow, with plenty of smoke. Hydrogen rises.
A lot of the burning material fell. Ignition of the aluminum paint on
the airship's skin, perhaps from a discharge of static electricity, is
a very reasonable explanation for what happened.

That's 100% correct,

Except that it's absolutely wrong.

No its not. *The skin caused a thermite reaction - you can see
thermite forming and dropping off the Hindenberg in the film, and see
it in the model as well.

The skin of the Hindenberg had a large RUST component, did it? REALLY?

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine

Yes, it had iron oxide/butyl/aluminum.

Here's a summary of another scholarly study - that looks at the film
as the best source of information of what happened.

http://www.seas.ucla.edu/hsseas/releases/blimp.htm

What ignited the thermite reaction which is difficult to start is
really the question here. The fact that it was thermite not hydrogen
that consumed the airship is not really in question.

I tend to agree with Pat that hydrogen was ignited to start the fire,
and that the tail of the ship blew off due to a hydrogen/air mix
ignited by a spark (or some other source).

Hydrogen does not explain why the fire spread forward with great
ferocity and speed to consume the whole airship. The film indicates
this was *because* a thermite reaction had gotten started in the skin
- which is evidenced by the rain of iron and aluminum oxide sparks
raining down from the skin as it is being consumed and the nature of
the flames from the skin being consumed - which is quite different
than what Dessler predicts.

Had the airship been designed somewhat differently, and had a thermite
reaction not taken place, it is likely a fire, but no explosion, would
have taken place and the airship would crash down more gently - with
even more survivors than it did have.

http://www.seas.ucla.edu/hsseas/releases/blimp.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6hKM1I7-co

What I think is a more interesting conspiracy theory for today is
UCLA's funders support hydrogen fuel, while Colorado's funder's
support hydrocarbon fuels. lol.

On Nov 10, 9:40*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Alan Anderson wrote:
On Nov 9, 11:19 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
The skin of the Hindenberg had a large RUST component, did it? REALLY?

Yes, really. Rust *is* iron oxide, you know.

Yes, I'm aware. *Van Horst is wrong. *

Cite?

The CU study actually made up
some material to match the skin composition of the Hindenberg and
their results indicate it would take something like 40 hours for the
stuff to burn and that static electricity won't ignite it.

Which is not what we're arguing about. No one is disagreeing that
burning the skin of the Hindenberg in air is a slow process. What
we're trying to impart to you with little success thus far is that
once a thermite reaction is established in that skin is spreads
explosively with an aggressive flame throwing sparks hither and yon
*just like in the film!* Its clear that a thermite reaction got
started at the tail of the ship - likely due to an explosion of
hydrogen/air mix within the dirigible - and that explosion likely set
off the thermite reaction which consumed the ship.


See, for example,http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues/...ct1/index.html

Test show that fabric doped in the fashion of the Hindenberg skin (Al
and iron oxide) burns incredibly slowly,

That's why the Germans used it. They couldn't imagine that a thermite
reaction could have gotten started. A spark igniting an air fuel mix
inside the envelope likely does more than a blow torch. A dirigible
with a similar leak and spark that had adequate ventilation and made
of more inert material would likely have settled to the ground
trailing a flame as the gas vented.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6hKM...eature=related

on the order of 10 minutes
for the flame to advance 1 meter. *Films of the Hindenberg disaster
show flame fronts advancing during the initial fire on the tail at
speeds two orders of magnitude faster than that. *

Correct. Experiments done with the same material where a thermite
reaction was ignited within the material are precisely this much
faster.

This makes it clear
that the fire on the skin was ignited by something underneath;

Where did the oxygen come from in the sealed balloon?

Even if there was sufficient oxygen underneath how long does it take a
hydrogen flame to ignite the material?

How long did it actually take?

Compare these answers to; how long does it take for a thermite
reaction to reduce the skin to iron and aluminum oxide?

Only the thermite reaction is fast enough. How it got started?
Likely a hydrogen explosion set it off.

Then ask, what does a hydrogen flame supported combustion of the skin
look like?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6hKM...eature=related

and
What does a thermite combustion of the skin look like?

Only the thermite reaction looks like what was filmed the day the
Hindenburg went down.

This strongly suggests that the Hindenburg was destroyed by a thermite
reaction.


hydrogen leakage from the #3 hydrogen cell.

mixing with air created an explosive mixture that was ignited by a
spark. That explosion ignited a thermite reaction in the skin of the
airship which destroyed it.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
* * live in the real world." *
* * * * * * * * * * * -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden

On Nov 10, 6:40*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Alan Anderson wrote:
On Nov 9, 11:19 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
The skin of the Hindenberg had a large RUST component, did it? REALLY?

Yes, really. Rust *is* iron oxide, you know.

Yes, I'm aware. *Van Horst is wrong. *The CU study actually made up
some material to match the skin composition of the Hindenberg and
their results indicate it would take something like 40 hours for the
stuff to burn and that static electricity won't ignite it.

See, for example,http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues/...ct1/index.html

Test show that fabric doped in the fashion of the Hindenberg skin (Al
and iron oxide) burns incredibly slowly, on the order of 10 minutes
for the flame to advance 1 meter. *Films of the Hindenberg disaster
show flame fronts advancing during the initial fire on the tail at
speeds two orders of magnitude faster than that. *This makes it clear
that the fire on the skin was ignited by something underneath;
hydrogen leakage from the #3 hydrogen cell.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
* * live in the real world." *
* * * * * * * * * * * -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden

The vertically moving an quickly accelerating hydrogen leakage only
added to the existing and ongoing fire that obviously went from bad to
worse. If it had been displaced with only helium, it still would have
burned and crashed like most other helium blimps have done (except
with fewer survivors).

~ BG

On Nov 10, 10:50*am, Doug Freyburger wrote:
Alan Anderson wrote:
Fred J. McCall wrote:

The skin of the Hindenberg had a large RUST component, did it? REALLY?

Yes, really. Rust *is* iron oxide, you know.

When aluminum ignites it isn't always a fermite reaction. *But some
folks will want to call any ignited aluminum by that name.

When you ignite a cotton fabric painted with iron oxide/butyl/aluminum
paint and the flame has a 3,000C spectrum and iron sparks rain down
along with iron oxide sparks - this really suggests a thermite
reaction is taking place.

On Nov 10, 11:24*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article dfceaeb8-cec9-484a-90d0-fb2a4182957c@
32g2000yqz.googlegroups.com, says...



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHbaOX2UAs0

Jay Leno mentions the Hindenberg in this video and explains the
hydrogen did not have anything to do with the explosion - calling it a
rumor - and explaining that hydrogen is not dangerous whatever.

What the hell does Jay Leno know about this topic? *He's a comedian and
late night TV talk show host!

Geez Mook, you do a great job of making yourself look like a complete
idiot.

Jeff
--
42

Jeff, Leno is careful in what he says publicly on these topics and
while he makes a lot of money as a comedian, he is a serious mechanic
and auto enthusiast. He is aware of the studies done by UCLA on this
topic, and the analysis of the films which clearly show that the skin
is consumed in a thermite reaction.

Something you are not aware of, and as a result, are sadly, looking
very foolish about.

On Nov 10, 1:36*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 13af1543-d24e-4aa8-91fc-
, says...



The point is hydrogen fueled and hydrogen filled balloons using modern
materials and methods are as safe as kerosene fueled jet liners or
gasoline fueled automobiles.

Yes Mr. Mook, paper vehicles that have never flown are always safer than
vehicles which have been driving and flying for decades. *Just like Ares
I was *always* safer than the shuttle.

Jeff
--
42

There will be accidents with any fuel. Every week dozens die in
gasoline fires. Every month a hydrocarbon fueling station burns to
the ground.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/729595...c h_your_car/

The death rate for hydrogen fires and the loss of equipment and
facilities due to hydrogen accidents is far far less than that for
hydrocarbons today even when adjusting for the smaller quantity of
hydrogen in use.

There is every reason to believe that systems developed for handling
and using hydrogen will be safer than the systems developed for
hydrocarbons on the basis of this disparity in accident rates
(normalized for volume)

Again, Jeff is guilty of fuzzy thinking. He argues against something
that isn't built on the basis that its not built and so we shouldn't
build it because anything we say about it can't be proven because it
doesn't exist. lol. By this illogical series we would never build
anything.

On Nov 10, 1:00*pm, William Mook wrote:
On Nov 10, 1:36*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:



In article 13af1543-d24e-4aa8-91fc-
, says....

The point is hydrogen fueled and hydrogen filled balloons using modern
materials and methods are as safe as kerosene fueled jet liners or
gasoline fueled automobiles.

Yes Mr. Mook, paper vehicles that have never flown are always safer than
vehicles which have been driving and flying for decades. *Just like Ares
I was *always* safer than the shuttle.

Jeff
--
42

There will be accidents with any fuel. *Every week dozens die in
gasoline fires. *Every month a hydrocarbon fueling station burns to
the ground.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/729595...rom_electrosta...

The death rate for hydrogen fires and the loss of equipment and
facilities due to hydrogen accidents is far far less than that for
hydrocarbons today even when adjusting for the smaller quantity of
hydrogen in use.

There is every reason to believe that systems developed for handling
and using hydrogen will be safer than the systems developed for
hydrocarbons on the basis of this disparity in accident rates
(normalized for volume)

Again, Jeff is guilty of fuzzy thinking. *He argues against something
that isn't built on the basis that its not built and so we shouldn't
build it because anything we say about it can't be proven because it
doesn't exist. *lol. * By this illogical series we would never build
anything.

Our Jeff is a closed mindset parrot, almost like yourself, so what do
you expect?

I agree that hydrogen and even HTP are each manageable energy
alternatives to that of liquid or gaseous hydrocarbons, not that
hydrogen and HTP should ever be used exclusively, especially since HTP
should be utilized along with a small amount of hydrocarbons, just
like H2 must always be utilized along with O2.

~ BG